Judge dismisses Kupperman/Bolton case: Absolute Immunity is BOGUS & Bolton Must Testify

[kpete]

2 takeaways from this obviously correct dismissal of Kupperman case:

- The definitive word on Trump’s absolute immunity claim remains that it’s bogus.

- Given that & now given yesterday’s new Ukraine reporting, Bolton’s refusal to testify is utterly unjustified & unjustifiable.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

MORE:
https://www.axios.com/charles-kupperman-subpoena-lawsuit-impeachment-6d864025-54f8-4548-bb26-0241a581bda6.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That's not what the case says at all.

The judge dismissed the case for mootness because the subpoena had been withdrawn; therefore there was nothing for the court to decide. The judge specifically said that the question of whether the subpoena would have had to be honored was not before him and he could not decide it. Here's what he said:

Have no doubt though, should the winds of political fortune shift and the House were to reissue a subpoena to Dr. Kupperman, he will face the same conflicting directives that precipitated this suit. If so, he will undoubtedly be right back before this Court seeking a solution to a Constitutional dilemma that has long-standing political consequences:
balancing Congress's well-established power to investigate with a President's need to have a small group of national security advisors who have some form of immunity from compelled Congressional testimony. See Comm. on Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 101 (D.D.C. 2008).

A dilemma, I might add, that I particularly appreciate having served on a number of occasions in both the Legislative and Executive branches. Fortunately, however, I need not strike that balance today! Dr. Kupperman's claims are MOOT, and his case must therefore be DISMISSED.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LHOQ0SSQvek1WAF8lmpiwtbyXu6E-rj_/view

It has no bearing on whether Bolton must testify.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Which sucks, because the process has to start all over if he's called in the Senate.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. But as Katayal correctly states, the dismissal of this case leaves the previous ruling in place

Meaning that Bolton must testify.

When are the next hearings, chairman Schiff?

[kentuck]

10. That's an interesting thought.

What happens if the House Intel Committee subpoenas Bolton, Mulvaney and his associates at the OMB, and a couple of Senators, Ron Johnson and Rob Portman?

Could they do that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. Pelosi would be the only obstacle I can see to continuing the inquiry nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Bolton hasn't been subpoenaed, and there's nothing in Leon's opinion

that suggests the judge has decided, or even hinted, that Bolton is required to testify. He could have found there was no complete immunity, but because the case against Kupperman was moot due to the subpoena having been withdrawn, he didn't have to, and actually couldn't. While it's true that Jackson's opinion still holds, I'm not sure why Katyal said what he said - I'm trying to find a video of his comments.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. with no other relevant cases pending, Jackson's ruling should be enforced.

Bolton said he would testify if served with a lawful subpoena. With Leon’s dismissal, Jackson’s ruling stands that the congressional subpoenas are lawful.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. It's being appealed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Has the court issued a stay pending appeal?

If not, then the ruling can be enforced.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. I believe there is an administrative stay right now, but

a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Karen Henderson, Judith Rogers and Thomas Griffith) – is scheduled to hear oral arguments this Friday, Jan. 3. (Henderson was appointed to this court by Bush I; Rogers was appointed by Clinton, and Griffith was appointed by Bush II.)

[Kurt V.]

17. do you think bolton may give the goods with no legal roadblock now?

[groundloop]

18. NO.... Bolton simply wants to pump up interest for his upcoming book

He never in a million years intended to testify, it was all a publicity stunt.

[Kurt V.]

19. i think so 2

[stopdiggin]

23. thanks. that was my take too.

a dismissal really says nothing about the merits of the case (or previous rulings) at all. I appreciate your efforts in keeping this string (and others) on track and somewhat grounded. It's often needed.

[ffr]

4. This is big!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. No, it isn't. The judge dismissed the case because it's moot,

and that's because the subpoena had been withdrawn, so there's no longer a case for the judge to decide. He specifically declined to address the question of whether the subpoena could have been enforced.

[Mr.Bill]

5. Won't they go to a higher court with an appeal?

I'm sure the Supreme Court will have a decision sometime in the fall of 2020.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. There's nothing to appeal.

The subpoena was withdrawn so there was nothing to decide.

[Mr.Bill]

13. Okay. I get it. n/t

[pazzyanne]

6. YES!!!!!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. See above posts. Nothing to get excited about.

[panader0]

11. Please clarify: were Kupperman and Bolton both on the same case?

I saw that the subpoena for K was withdrawn.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. The Kupperman subpoena was withdrawn.

Kupperman was Bolton's deputy, and they have the same lawyer, but Bolton himself has not been subpoenaed.

[panader0]

15. So Bolton could potentially still be subpoenaed and not have legal recourse?

Thanks to you lawyers here on DU to explain these things.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Bolton could be subpoenaed and still have the same legal recourse as any other witness.

The dismissal of the Kupperman case doesn't affect what might happen if Bolton gets a subpoena. The McGahn case (which is being appealed) is more important in that respect.

[pazzyanne]

26. See post #3

I'll take what I can get!